No, I'm still not letting you off the hook for this nonsense. Saying that war is one of the typical methods for resolving theological dispute is to raise alarm. That you cannot accept the implications of your posts, but instead feign your position has been improperly represented and so you needn't respond, is just your way of hiding behind your inability to logically and substantively respond.

You presented an OP, failed to respond, and so now the OP is left far behind where we talk about your inability to post and what you think you can demand in order for a response to be warranted.

Religion is commonly based on some “sacred” writings, — Art48

Do you imagine that writing predates religion? Let me tell you a different story. I'll call it "Animism". As Mankind developed through spoken language, the awareness of his awareness that we call consciousness, he naturally assumed that everything else was also conscious, because his philosophy professor had told him not to assume he was special. Animals were obviously aware trees were clearly alive, volcanos were angry, the wind was clearly going places, and the rain was always dancing.

Writing simply organised and ossified the relationships, aided by politics, whereby whoever wins the battle has the better gods on their side.

Philosophers now pour scorn on these ideas, as if they have proved that it is not so, and that the universe is dead. And we all lived happily ever after.

[R]eligion and science don't serve the same human needs. Science is the tool used to understand and manipulate matter. Organized religion (which bears only the most superficial resemblance to prehistoric or tribal ritual) is a tool used in support of stratified power structures. — Vera Mont

:100: :fire: Excellent post.

:clap:

As I mentioned, religions can and do change their teachings, by reinterpreting or ignoring scripture but not by repudiating scriptural verses. — Art48

One of the very early Church fathers was named Origen. Amongst his teachings was a much-neglected principle of interpretation of scriptural texts. He taught that the Bible had multiple levels of meaning and that it should be interpreted allegorically as well as literally. He believed that the literal meaning of scripture was the surface level, but that beneath that there were deeper spiritual truths that could be understood through allegory and symbolism. He also believed that the Bible should be interpreted in light of the teachings of the Church and the Tradition of the Fathers.

A similar understanding was held by Augustine a few centuries later. In fact an often-cited passage from one of his books, On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis, can be read word-for-word as a condemnation of fundamentalism:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.

Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.

If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion ¹.

None of which goes to show that Augustine and Origen were 'right' or that their ideas are not archaic. But you're stereotyping religion as fundamentalist, even though that is a tendency which has been understood and criticized within Christianity itself from the earliest times.

Science is the tool used to understand and manipulate matter. Organized religion (which bears only the most superficial resemblance to prehistoric or tribal ritual) is a tool used in support of stratified power structures. — Vera Mont

This observation would be universally applicable to all human institutions. Humans are social animals, and hierarchies always arise, which includes political wrangling and control of power.

That is, what you say about religious organizations applies to governmental organizations, and to lesser or greater degrees based upon the authority they wield, things like the APA, the AMA, or other organizations.

But this is to compare apples to oranges when you compare religious organizations to scientific methods. An apt comparison would be to compare either religious organizations to scientific organizations or to compare religious methods to scientific methods.

Personally, I refer to purposes, meaning the purpose of science is to tell me about the world. The purpose of religion is to tell me how to live in it

Personally, I refer to purposes, meaning the purpose of science is to tell me about the world. The purpose of religion is to tell me how to live in it — Hanover

Once upon a time, when I was a high school junior, a priest had told me "Reason is for living in this world and faith is living for the world-to-come". (Some months later I recognized I'd not only lost "my faith" but also that I'd never had any "faith" whatsoever.)

This observation would be universally applicable to all human institutions. Humans are social animals, and hierarchies always arise, which includes political wrangling and control of power. — Hanover

So, how does that relate to the question: Why has science, which explains so much, not displaced religion?

But this is to compare apples to oranges — Hanover

Exactly what I did. I was comparing neither methodologies nor organizations. I was pointing out that science and religion are not comparable, not in competition with each other, not operating in the same arena.

Personally, I refer to purposes, meaning the purpose of science is to tell me about the world. The purpose of religion is to tell me how to live in it — Hanover

Yes, I think the invented religions were meant to instruct in the rules of living. That's why I note the distinction between natural grown belief systems of early human cultures and modern incorporated institutions centered on written tenets and formal canon laws.

He taught that the Bible had multiple levels of meaning and that it should be interpreted allegorically as well as literally. He believed that the literal meaning of scripture was the surface level, but that beneath that there were deeper spiritual truths that could be understood through allegory and symbolism. — Wayfarer

The problem with allegorical and symbolic interpretations is that they can make a writing mean anything at all. Sam Harris makes the point better than I could in his recipe analogy.

You can google "Sam Harris recipe" for many links which mention it.. Below is a cut and paste from one link for convenience.

Harris walks into a bookstore (Barnes & Noble), and with his eyes closed, randomly grabbed a book and opened it at random. The book was called “A taste of Hawaii: New Cooking from the Crossroads of the Pacific.”

Here’s what Harris wrote in the end-note.

“And therein I discovered it as yet uncelebrated mystical treatise. While it appears to be a recipe for seared fish and shrimp cakes with tomato relish, we need only study list of ingredients to know we are in the presence of unrivaled spiritual intelligence. Then I list the ingredients: One snapper fillet cubed, three teaspoons of chopped scallions, salt and freshly ground pepper… there’s a long list of ingredients.

Then I go through with a mystical interpretation of this recipe. The snapper fillet is the individual himself. You and I, awash in the sea of existence, and here we find it cubed which is to say that our situation must be remedied in all three dimensions of body, mind, and in spirit. They have three teaspoons of chopped scallions, this further partakes of the cubic symmetry suggesting that that which we need add to each level of our being by way of antidote comes likewise in equal proportions. The import of the passage is clear: the body, mind, spirit need to be tended with the same care. Salt and freshly ground black pepper; here we have the perennial invocation of opposites. The white and black aspects of our nature. Both good and evil must be understood if we would fulfil the recipe of spiritual life. Nothing after all can be excluded from the human experience. This seems to be a tantric text. What is more, salt and pepper come to us in the form of grains which is to say that the good and bad qualities are born at the tiniest actions and thus we’re not in good or evil in general but only by virtue of innumerable moments which color the stream of our being by force of repetition. Then this dash of cayenne pepper: clearly a being of such robust color and flavour signifies the spiritual influence of an enlightened adept. I go on and on and this is all bullshit because it’s meant to be bullshit.”

P.S. Of course, an allegorical and/or symbolic interpretation may contain much wisdom. But the wisdom is not from the book; it is from the writer.

Here's my own analogy.

Popeye says "I am what I am and that's all that I am." I can interpret this to mean that we should always be without pretense. Pretense and lies and "fake news" seems to rule the media today. Lord Popeye wants us to avoid pretense and lies. He wants us to simply be what we truly are.

So, Popeye is a wise, spiritual sage? Me thinks not. :lol:

Once upon a time, when I was a high school junior, a priest had told me "Reason is for living in this world and faith is living for the world-to-come". (Some months later I recognized I'd not only lost "my faith" but also that I'd never had any "faith" whatsoever.) — 180 Proof

This summation by your priest seems incorrect, or at least overly simplified. Not that I'm any sort of Catholic theologian, but just thinking of St. Thomas Aquinas' reliance upon Aristotelian thought and the role reason plays in the knowledge of religious claims, I don't see how what your priest said is consistent with that. That is, Catholics do place a high regard for faith in living in this world, do believe that faith has an important place in knowing truths in this world, and believe the opposite as well, which is that many religious views are supportable through logic. That is, there is a very developed Catholic theology that tries to bridge reason and faith, which isn't at all well described by your good priest.

https://iep.utm.edu/faith-re/#SH4e . Subsection "e" of this article describes Aquinas' thinking on this in considerable detail.

I would also say that the emphasis on the afterlife is particular to Christianity, especially some strands of it, and it's not an ideology existing in all religions, especially Judaism.

Ask a Christian day school student about the significance of heaven and hell, and he can probably recite to you the entire story of the fall of man. Ask a Jewish day school student about heaven and hell and he'll likely not be able to explain much to you, maybe giving you a vague statement that he knows that souls are eternal. Ask him though whether you can eat shellfish, and he'll say "Are you crazy? They don't have gills or scales."

That is just to say there are religions that are very this worldly, and that is not something essential to religious thought. It's also to say that your priest gave someone who deserved a more detailed response a not very researched answer.

P.S. Of course, an allegorical and/or symbolic interpretation may contain much wisdom. But the wisdom is not from the book; it is from the writer. — Art48

Just so. Only, most of those interpretations are not wise; they're just PR for the doctrine of their choice.
Here's what actually happened: Over many centuries, writings were collected and assembled by various groups of churchmen for various reasons.

It was not until the 5th century that all the different Christian churches came to a basic agreement on Biblical canon. The books that eventually were considered canon reflect the times they were embraced as much the times of the events they portray.

Interesting article BTW.

They're not allegorical, symbolical, multi-layered mysterical - they're just old stories, added on to the Jesus story as told by early Christians

The oral traditions within the church formed the substance of the Gospels, the earliest book of which is Mark, written around 70 A.D., 40 years after the death of Jesus.

to give the new deity some historic roots and legitimacy. They were collected and maybe some newer ones added on by one or more of the collators, while some old stories were later thrown out, for several reasons - they didn't fit prevailing doctrine, or were objectionable on some moral ground, contradict papal edicts, or are simply badly written fiction. (I have read some apocrypha and it's uphill work.)

IOW - It is a book of stories. Read as you please.

So, how does that relate to the question: Why has science, which explains so much, not displaced religion? — Vera Mont

That was the specific question of a prior thread, but less so this one.

But to answer the question the best I can muster, I'd say (1) because they answer very different questions and respond to very different concerns, and, even if they didn't, (2) an organization's survival is not dependent upon its validity.

That is, as to #1, one generally does not look to science to respond to existential or moral questions. I don't know what sort of lab would look like that would search for answers like that.

As to #2, there are in fact plenty of people who continue to use religion beyond questions of meaning, purpose, and defining good and evil. For example, there are the Creationists and what not, who use religion to answer questions best addressed by science. The reason they continue to exist is because politics is the driver for an organization's success, not just the pure power of logic and truth. While science does have wide acceptance, and a certain amount of that acceptance is based upon the fact it seems to work, its acceptance is also attributable to politics and social issues.

There are areas of the world where science is rejected, which speaks to educational issues, but an emphasis on education, as we understand that in the West, happens to be our social norm due our history and political forces. We therefore treat AIDS with pharmaceuticals instead of the shaman's sagebrush.

However, even in our society, you see all sorts of naturopaths and homeopaths that should have been cast away years ago by medical science, but they haven't been. Their survival is a social phenomenon as complex as the society we live in, which means it's not always adherence to the truth that leads to survivability. That is to say, I'm not committed to the longevity of religion as a basis for suggesting it has value in ascertaining truth. A particularly terrible reason to do something is just because that's the way it's always been done.

But all of this is to say the answer to your question that I broke into 2 parts is combined as: Because science has won the political battle in our society that prizes an objective sense of truth over an imparting of meaning into every event, and so we resort to it when we want answers it can address, but don't when it cannot.

This would be different if we lived in a primitive society that valued finding evidence of the miraculous design of God in every event. And this is why I find the biblical criticisms that appear here often inapplicable, where people read these stories and think they're fraudulent, as if the goal of the authors was that of a 20th Century university trained journalist, whose charge was to provide an objective statement of the facts, offering a balanced view from all perspectives.

It is for that difference in worldview, where people aren't looking for objective statements of fact, where they are looking for meaning in everything, that they still insist upon a 6 day creation. They are not educated in modern ways, or, as we often say from our perspective, they are simply not educated.

That was the specific question of a prior thread, but less so this one. — Hanover

Nevertheless, that post you quoted and disputed was a direct response to:

It's simply embarrassing to me, that despite the fact that humans are smart and now have a mountain of scientific data, some of the people can still be fooled by theism and/or theosophism, all of the time! — universeness

But all of this is to say the answer to your question — Hanover

I didn't have one. I already knew that people tend to resort to magical thinking when they can't control their environment or their lives. And that magical thinking appears in the form of religious observance, augury, water dowsing, gambling, horoscope and palm reading, witch-burning, ritual dancing, human sacrifice and the avoidance of ladders and black cats. On the up-side, it also manifests as art, literature and cosmology.

Nevertheless, that post you quoted and disputed was a direct response to:
It's simply embarrassing to me, that despite the fact that humans are smart and now have a mountain of scientific data, some of the people can still be fooled by theism and/or theosophism, all of the time!
— universeness — Vera Mont

I had no way to contextualize your question to me as a response to something @universeness said to you in another part of this debate.

— Hanover

But all of this is to say the answer to your question
— Hanover
I didn't have one. — Vera Mont

Yes you did, you asked this question below:

So, how does that relate to the question: Why has science, which explains so much, not displaced religion?
— Vera Mont



That was the question I answered, which was the question you asked.

This is the situation we should expect if God does not really exist: different civilizations making up different stories about God — Art48

Quick question. If God doesn't exist, why is it such a persistent archetype of human existence throughout our history as a species? Cultures don't naturally develop an innate concept for "microchips" or "a telegraph" lest they develop that specific tech. But they almost definitively have a word for God that has lasted through the ages. Generation to generation. And still persists to this day.

There isn't a single grown adult in the world that doesn't know what the word God means. It may mean something different to each person but it still a meaning. Even atheists have a concept of it for which they reject as an explanation for existence. But rejection requires acceptance of a specific paradigm for which to deny.

Why do all civilizations, isolated from one another at one point in history, persistently evolve a concept of the word "God"? It seems a permanent and permeating concept regardless of what culture or group is examined.

God in that sense is a "stand-in" for that which current knowledge fails to explain or outright disprove. An idea so massive, profound and mysterious, that at best we can just choose to not believe it has significance. Despite having no ultimate proof to that attitude.

If we replace the word "God" with "existence" , would you ask someone "Do you believe in existence?"

That was the question I answered, which was the question you asked. — Hanover

Sorry. I didn't realize. You went to a lot of trouble and I should have paid closer attention. Of course, the explanation is very like the more concise one I had previously offered. Here it is, recontextualized:

It's simply embarrassing to me, that despite the fact that humans are smart and now have a mountain of scientific data, some of the people can still be fooled by theism and/or theosophism, all of the time! — universeness
That's only because religion and science don't serve the same human needs. Science is the tool used to understand and manipulate matter. Organized religion (which bears only the most superficial resemblance to prehistoric or tribal ritual) is a tool used in support of stratified power structures. — Vera Mont

and then:

Science is the tool used to understand and manipulate matter. Organized religion (which bears only the most superficial resemblance to prehistoric or tribal ritual) is a tool used in support of stratified power structures. — Vera Mont
This observation would be universally applicable to all human institutions. Humans are social animals, and hierarchies always arise, which includes political wrangling and control of power. — Hanover

How does this ^^^^ relate to the matter of science failing to replace religion?

Political, professional and social organizations also exist alongside scientific and religious ones, but they all serve different purposes, and none of them is expected to answer the so-called "Big Questions". Only Science and God are expected to do that, and of course, neither one says an intelligible word in response to Who am I?" "Why am I?" "Where's the universe come from?" "What's it all mean?" One provides answers to some fragments of the what, why and how of things; the other provides rules of conduct, accompanied by a stick and a carrot.

Only Science and God are expected to do that, and of course, neither one says an intelligible word in response to Who am I?" "Why am I?" "Where's the universe come from?" "What's it all mean?" — Vera Mont

Science is a manifestation of human intent. In my view, science aspires to omniscience.
This relates to my discussion with @noAxioms in my thread 'Emergent,' and I don't want to bore everyone by repeating too much of what I typed there.

Personally, I refer to purposes, meaning the purpose of science is to tell me about the world. The purpose of religion is to tell me how to live in it — Hanover

Can you give me an example of a way that religion tells people how to live, which could not be delivered by irreligious moral humans? What moral exclusivity do you suggest religion or god (in any of its descriptions, ancient or modern,) has, that humans cannot equal?

Science is a manifestation of human intent. — universeness

Science is a manifestation of human aspiration and curiosity. It is not always intentional or directed; its products are not always functional. In horizontal societies, the product is innovation - more efficient ways to obtain and prepare food, travel, build, carry, preserve, keep warm, recover from illness and injury. In vertical societies, fruitful scientific investigation is co-opted by the ruling classes, to serve their own interests. To the extent that incidental improvement in the lot of the underclasses benefits the ruling class or ensures their security, some benefit extends to the society at large. If an innovation or its byproducts are harmful, the underclasses are affected, while ruling class is shielded from the harm.

Similarly, projection and narrative are manifestations of human self-regard and imagination.
In horizontal societies, the product is some form of animism, myth and spontaneous ritual. From mythology, in vertical social organizations, come invented religions, with their formalized rituals and the concepts of worship, obedience, sin, guilt and sacrifice. This internalization of hierarchy and law benefits the ruling classes, who are also shielded from the harmful effects of obedience, humility and self-denial.

Science is a manifestation of human intent. In my view, science aspires to omniscience. — universeness

Science doesn't aspire any more than a wheelbarrow rolls. Humans aspire and push at the limits of their knowledge. Science is a method applied by humans to human endeavours; it is not a supernatural entity with a will of its own.

Can you give me an example of a way that religion tells people how to live, which could not be delivered by irreligious moral humans? What moral exclusivity do you suggest religion or god (in any of its descriptions, ancient or modern,) has that humans cannot equal? — universeness

I'll try my best to answer, but the question goes against a fundamental tenant of my beliefs, which is that I think religion is at its worst when it tries to convince others to be religious. It's an anti-proselytizing view I have, both because I don't believe in it, and "proselytize" is hard enough to spell that I have to keep trying until it's close enough for spell-check to have a clue what I'm trying to say.

That is, if you are a good, upstanding, moral person who has found a meaningful and fulfilling life, then all is well. You don't need to hear from me and you really wouldn't care to. In fact, I would ask that you not attend any religious service. You'd be annoyed and you'd be annoying.

So, now this turns me to telling you why I believe, which would obviously be personal, idiosyncratic, filled I'm sure with psychological insights into all that is Hanover, all of which you'd consider to be oversharing, and none of which would have any application to you. The best I could do is to say that I derive significant meaning from the idea that there is meaning behind everything big and small. You might find that quaint, stupid, curious, or just simply unnecessary, all to which I wouldn't care.

None of my beliefs are based on fear of societal condemnation or of hell. I reject an actual Jesus entirely, which means I couldn't care any less of this worldly or next worldly condemnation. It's for that reason I find these criticisms of religion generally just so many words of presumptuous nonsense, as if the word "religious" means that certain beliefs must follow.

This is to throw back at you my belief system, which is why in the world could you personally care if I adhere to superfluous beliefs if a positive result in maintained, and why feel the need to cast aspersions upon the religious if a pragmatic result is achieved. As I've indicated in previous posts, William James says it better than me.

What I can say is that the aspersions typically cast by the non-religious are about as accurate and impactful as the aspersions typically cast by the religious upon the non-religious, so blame lies at the feet of both sides, but not of mine because I don't buy into the simplistic nonsense of religion and I find the attacks on those simplistic belief systems pure strawman.

The best I could do is to say that I derive significant meaning from the idea that there is meaning behind everything big and small. You might find that quaint, stupid, curious, or just simply unnecessary, all to which I wouldn't care. — Hanover

Thanks for articulating your perspective. I always find it fascinating to hear from believers who are not led by dogma and dominated by fear.

Can I ask if you consider your reasons to be located in an aesthetic context? It almost seems that you are saying the world appears more captivating, agreeable or attractive when viewed in this way.

This is the situation we should expect if God does not really exist: different civilizations making up different stories about God — Art48

Quick question. If God doesn't exist, why is it such a persistent archetype of human existence throughout our history as a species? — Benj96

The entire paragraph is as follows:
This is the situation we should expect if God does not really exist: different civilizations making up different stories about God. But it’s also the situation we should expect if God wants to be discovered fresh, by each person: religion gets us started on the path, but eventually we realize it’s fictional. At that point, we arrive at a fork in the road: atheism lies on one side, a personal search for genuine knowledge and experience of God lies on the other.

To answer your question more directly, I think that something which deserves to be called "God" does exist but that our pictures of God are inaccurate, perhaps inevitably due to human limitations. 2,000 years ago Jesus taught disease was the result of sin and demons, a primitive, incorrect teaching. Today, we understand disease better but not completely. We are still progressing. Maybe it's the same with God - except that primitive "scriptures" hinder the search, in that if someone is already convinced they have the truth (for example, that sin and demons really do cause disease) then they are less like to find truth than someone who is searching.


:

To clarify, Fr. Sandström wasn't making a pronouncement of Catholic theology or Papal doctrine, just passing on his personal (existential) insight to an altarboy student (me) who Fr. knew was on the verge of apostasy. I was very fortunate to study NT scriptures, etc in high school with a double PhD (philosophy & theology) Jesuit teacher; so to the extent to which he "simplified" the Reason (learned "how") / Faith (revealed "why") distinction, I still believe he did so for my sixteen year old sake. Nothing I'd learned up to that age or in over four decades since about Catholicism in particular or Christianity in general has been inconsistent with the otherworldly orientation of "faith", and so I disagree with your interpretation, Hanover, on that point. :halo:

:up: "Excelsior!"

Science is a manifestation of human aspiration and curiosity. It is not always intentional or directed; its products are not always functional. In horizontal societies, the product is innovation - more efficient ways to obtain and prepare food, travel, build, carry, preserve, keep warm, recover from illness and injury. In vertical societies, fruitful scientific investigation is co-opted by the ruling classes, to serve their own interests. To the extent that incidental improvement in the lot of the underclasses benefits the ruling class or ensures their security, some benefit extends to the society at large. If an innovation or its byproducts are harmful, the underclasses are affected, while ruling class is shielded from the harm. — Vera Mont

Human aspiration and curiosity are aspects or 'drivers' of human intent and purpose.
If I am curious about what exists up a dark path or how a bird is able to fly, then I might manifest an intent to find out, such intent to find out would be intentional and directed. I think you are hair splitting.
If you are suggesting something like the discovery of penicillin was not 'intended' science as it contained an aspect of 'fortunate happenstance,' then I disagree, as 'scientists,' or the scientific mind is always vigilant (like the photographer who always carries a camera) and therefore always has scientific intent, purpose, driven by insatiable curiosity and aspiration.

I completely agree with you that nefarious people try to control new tech and employ it for their own benefits only, and that this remains a serious problem today, that all humans must be made aware of, and be convinced to help stop this happening, in the future, and that's an on-going battle, that's been going on for generations. But, I don't understand how such issues connect with your suggestion, that science does not contribute to or;

neither one says an intelligible word in response to Who am I?" "Why am I?" "Where's the universe come from?" "What's it all mean?" One provides answers to some fragments of the what, why and how of things; the other provides rules of conduct, accompanied by a stick and a carrot. — Vera Mont

You seem to slightly contradict yourself with 'neither one says an intelligible word,' and then 'one provides some fragment of the what, why and how of things.' Science has made enormous in-roads into the 'how' and 'what' of things. It also helps a great deal towards the much more difficult 'why' of things.
We can discuss specific examples if you wish, but maybe that's another thread.

Similarly, projection and narrative are manifestations of human self-regard and imagination.
In horizontal societies, the product is some form of animism, myth and spontaneous ritual. — Vera Mont

Do you not agree that your second sentence above, is less true today than it has ever been since the days of the first cities, such as Jericho and Uruk? Even (in the past, very infuential/powerful male based ritualistic groups) like the 'masons,' have lost a great deal of their membership, and the youth of today seem a lot less interested in such groups. Are you suggesting that they are being replaced by equally ritualistic and equally powerful online groups? If so, what would be an example? Animism, myth and ritualistic practices are in global decline, imo.

Science doesn't aspire any more than a wheelbarrow rolls. Humans aspire and push at the limits of their knowledge. Science is a method applied by humans to human endeavours; it is not a supernatural entity with a will of its own. — Vera Mont

Scientists are humans and they are the harbingers of science. Nothing supernatural was suggested by me. I am not trying to 'objectify' science in the way you suggest. Practicing science and the scientific method, exemplifies human intent and purpose. Science can be demonstrated successfully without one iota of god content. So, for me, there is no god beyond fiction and god cannot inform humans how to live as it does not demonstrate its existence. We ask questions Vera because our goal is omniscience. I think our reach for omniscience will be forever asymptotic, but I am ok with that. What do you think the purpose is, of humans/transhumans, doing science for the next 200 million years, if we still exist, if it is not to reach for omniscience?

I'll try my best to answer — Hanover

Full respect to that!

It's an anti-proselytizing view I have, both because I don't believe in it, and "proselytize" is hard enough to spell that I have to keep trying until it's close enough for spell-check to have a clue what I'm trying to say. — Hanover

:lol:

You have the right to believe or have faith in anything you like, and sure, you can ignore any attempts at dissention you might receive as a consequence. BUT, you cannot and will never get away with just exclaiming 'I am what I am and what I am needs no excuses.'
Perhaps no excuses, but no explanations? No justifications? That just won't do!
If you maintain that position, then I for one, will forever try to gnaw at you. :razz:
Why do you feel the need to be so stubborn in your defence of your right to the esoteric?
I am fascinated about why you need to believe in the existence of something which is metaphysical or supernatural or some presence or 'mind' that is, so much more than you are and cares about you or/and us. Is my description of some of the properties of that which you declare faith in, accurate?
What guidelines are communicated to you? What source do you tap, that you consult when you ask yourself a question like 'how should I react to this particular scenario I am now facing in this life?'
You simply type that your faith helps you know how to live. Is that as far as you intend to go with your explanations?
No further details, no example scenario's to explain the details of your thinking processes, not even some propositional logic arguments that employ identity, contradiction and excluded middle?
If that is your position, then to me, it's quite a weak one.
Yes, I know you don't care if that's my opinion. :grin: I am just disappointed, that's all.

If I am curious about what exists up a dark path or how a bird is able to fly, then I might manifest an intent to find out, such intent to find out would be intentional and directed. I think you are hair splitting. — universeness

Okay. I meant that the curiosity drives investigation, even when it has no particular end in mind. You want to know what's down a dark alley, not because you expect to find something of value there, but just to know - even if it turns out to be dangerous. There is always an element of happenstance in the exercise of curiosity. (How many times have we sat in front of a movie screen, yelling "Don't go in the basement, Stupid!!!")

You seem to slightly contradict yourself with 'neither one says an intelligible word,' and then 'one provides some fragment of the what, why and how of things.' — universeness

There is no contradiction. Neither science nor religion talk. People talk. They tell you all kinds of things, and some of those things are incorrect, garbled, ambiguous or downright lies.
A methodology helps humans to figure out the what and why of things - that was the operative word: things - not the purpose or identity or destiny of humans, and it's no help at all with moral and ethical questions or the conduct of society.

Do you not agree that your second sentence above, is less true today than it has ever been since the days of the first cities, such as Jericho and Uruk? — universeness

Not at all. It was never true in any city-state. All 'civilizations' are vertical. There are very few examples of horizontal society anymore; even the Innu of northern Canada are half Europeanized. I understand there are still some uncontaminated pockets of native people in the Andes mountains.

Even (in the past, very infuential/powerful male based ritualistic groups) like the 'masons,' have lost a great deal of their membership, and the youth of today seem a lot less interested in such groups. — universeness

Masons are irrelevant. That is a very recent past and there are much more sinister cabals now. In all post civilized societies (the last 6000 or so years: stone walls, writing, kings and warlords, legal codes, big tombs for the elite, little wooden markers for the peasants) one to three classes or castes run the whole show and control all the wealth; one or two middle layers carry out the administrative and law-enforcement work and get a decent standard of living; some merchants and artisans do all right; the vast majority work hard for small reward and are mostly scared.

Animism, myth and ritualistic practices are in global decline, imo. — universeness

Animism has been all but wiped out along with the peoples who practiced it. Myth has been reduced in popular parlance to a synonym of "falsehood". Rituals of all kinds are still widely practiced, however, not only in churches, but in offices, stock markets, public meetings, parliaments, casinos, in households and on the street.

Scientists are humans and they are the harbingers of science. — universeness

Practitioners, not harbingers.

I am not trying to 'objectify' science in the way you suggest. — universeness

I did not suggest objectifying. I accused you - and you are very far from alone in this - anthropomorphizing. It does not speak, desire, intend or do anything.

We ask questions Vera because our goal is omniscience. — universeness

That's one goal - or at least wish - of humans. Some humans. Many others would rather be spared all that learning and just know enough to get by and they resent the eggheads.
Another thing humans want is 'meaning' - they want to be special and significant. The more scientists reveal of the universe, the smaller and less significant people feel. They resent the hell out of that!
Another thing humans want is magic bullets. Somebody more powerful than themselves, who cares for them, protects them and can make their problems go away.
The most important thing humans wish for is immortality.* Most of them are not content with the prospect of living on as a computer program or a cyborg or as a popsicle, waiting for someone to invent a cure for death - they want to be in heaven, young, happy and reunited with the people they've lost. And that's why they won't let go of religion.
(That's somewhat oversimplified, as there are also practical reasons.)
*Best line in Genesis; says it all:

3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.

[

Thanks for articulating your perspective. I always find it fascinating to hear from believers who are not led by dogma and dominated by fear.

Can I ask if you consider your reasons to be located in an aesthetic context? It almost seems that you are saying the world appears more captivating, agreeable or attractive when viewed in this way. — Tom Storm

The scientific method at its most fundamental level holds to a theory of causation, which, as Hume noted, is not an empirically based conclusion. Kant attempted to remedy that by declaring causation a truth about the world that is known prior to experience (the synthetic a priori). The basis for that remedy was a recognition that we cannot organize our thoughts without such an acceptance. This jettisons though those that organize their thoughts around the teleological. The sun rising because the earth spun is the causative explanation. The sun rising to provide energy to the plants the teleological one. We assert the former without explanation of what the first cause might have been and the second without explanation for the final purpose. That is, we look no further than the surrounding causes to know the cause and we look no further than the surrounding purposes to know the purpose, but, in either instance, we assume much more remote causes and much more remote purposes.

My point here is only to point out a logical basis for a belief in the teleological exists as much as the causative, but, I'm less committed to that reason than the pragmatic implication of the teleological.

When I ask why the sun rises today from a causative perspective, I would be overwhelmed with the response, as those causes go back to the first cause. It was going to happen as it did under such a determined system. (And I do realize that indeterminate events at the quantum level made resulted in some predictive determinacy, which I point out not because it's relevant here, but to proactively respond to the detractors.) But to ask the first cause for having the sun rising would not yield any known answer other than that there must have been because here's the sun today.

So, what would a world look like to someone who instead of simply remarking "every event has a cause" (the causative position), but also "every event has a purpose" (the teleological position). It would sound something like this (from the Reform Jewish prayer book):

"Days pass and the years vanish and we walk sightless among miracles. Lord, fill our eyes with seeing and our minds with knowing. Let there be moments when your Presence, like lightning, illuminates the darkness in which we walk. Help us to see, wherever we gaze, that the bush burns, unconsumed. And we, clay touched by God, will reach out for holiness and exclaim in wonder, “How filled with awe is this place and we did not know it.”

Start there, and you're left with the idea that there are no coincidences, and that all has meaning. We study the Bible, therefore, not because it is more holy than the blade of grass or more imbued with meaning, but simply that it has been studied more extensively for the purposes of finding meaning, and we benefit from history's most insightful from having previously studied it. The same can be said of the sacred texts of other traditions as well.

Is this aesthetics? In a way I suppose, but the beauty is found in the meaning.

And from this theology, much else follows, which is a trust in the perfection of things and an optimism terribly missing throughout the posts here.

As I've noted also, I'm not primarily concerned with the accuracy of theology, although there is a meaningful ground to hold to it logically, but just as much so with the pragmatic implications, which I have cited to in other posts and alluded to here.

and it's no help at all with moral and ethical questions or the conduct of society. — Vera Mont

What do you champion about humans Vera? anything?
In my opinion you have already stated that in general, you are a doomster, when it comes to the future.
I get the impression that you think the human race is incapable of producing a society which you yourself would judge as significantly better than any society we have created in the past or present.
Are you a secular naturalist or do you assign some credence to the existence of the 'immaterial?'
I think that our sociopolitical viewpoints, align more that they diverge. We seem to disagree mainly on issues of personal or popular interpretation.
Stuff like:

Scientists are humans and they are the harbingers of science.
— universeness
Practitioners, not harbingers. — Vera Mont

One interpretation would see science simply as a totality of the efforts of all scientists.
Another would see science (as I do,) as a little bit more than that totality or sum of its parts.
The 'totality' of all scientific effort DOES speak towards human questions such as 'why am I.'
An answer such as 'I am, because I can think and I can demonstrate intent and purpose and I can do science and I can affect my surroundings and environment in ways that no other species on Earth can.' To me, this Is a fairly good claim, that any member of our species can claim. Not only claim, but demonstrate. At the moment we can only demonstrate to others in our own species, as other species don't seem to be able to investigate us, in the same way we can investigate them.

You and some others on TPF are free to predict that any future benevolent human/transhuman society, will have to go through many more apocalyptic experiences, before they learn how to create a society which makes living as a human a very positive experience. You can also suggest that it is more likely that we will go extinct and be replaced by some better candidates.
For me, at it's core, that's too close to choosing to live life as a curse. I will never choose to do that, no matter what happens to me! I will fight against living my life as a curse, every moment of every day.
You should watch some online stuff such as offerings from folks like Forrest Valkai.
I believe him when he claims he has hardly had a negative day in his life:

When I ask why the sun rises today from a causative perspective — Hanover

Perhaps realising that the sun does not actually 'rise' at all, EVER! would be a good start.
The Earth turns, and as it does, different parts of it are in the direct path of the sun's radiations.
Is sunrise or sunset more accurate than dayrotation and nightrotation?

But hey, perhaps sunrise and sunset are just more 'romantic,' in the same way that its romantic to think a god loves us.

Perhaps realising that the sun does not actually 'rise' at all, EVER! would be a good start. — universeness

Yours is a worse delusion in that you actually think you contribute something to this conversation.